XBOX ONE is sounding terrible.

[Dattebayo]

My thoughts exactly. While Sony is flaunting they've won the video gaming console market, Microsoft has already moved on. With the One (or XBone, as you haters call it), Microsoft's intent was to do more than gaming. By the time Sony sees this, they will have been left far behind. Right now, people are more demanding and you can't fill just one niche anymore.

People will buy it not for gaming, but for all the other stuff it does.

Anyone that was born in the 80's should have enough know how to design a computer home system that will be much more robust, better performing, and cheaper than any console home system.

Microsoft I feel is targeting a market that has little to no technological bearing. The people that are technologically savvy questions why you are paying for services that are already free on the internet? Heck, I don't even have TV service as internet streams don't require to set a DVR record time and you watch it when it is convenient for you and for FREE. Movies? Letmewatchthis.com.

[gobler]

Nope... The "Big Brother" features and the DRM on the x1 just killed it for me. With what the NSA just got caught doing it's really bad timing for M$.


Sent from somewhere in time & space...

[Iknownot]

Say what you will about the DRM policy on the xbox one, but once again, MS is presenting a well thought out, unified idea for what their console is supposed to do, as opposed to sony, which seems, yet again to have gone, "our console needs "x" amount of features, because the competition has "x" amount, with not much real thought or focus or honing of those features.

I mean, I watched the PSn features vid and all I really saw, besides the video sharing, is the fact that after 8 years, PSn is finally getting unified LIVE features.

This is not a rip on Sony per se, but just the simple fact that both companies have had very different ideas on how to approach their console. Sony was much more comfortable with getting the console out as is and then refining things later where as MS had a unified idea that they worked towards perfecting over the console life cycle.

Now, you may not be happy with the DRM on the xbox one. I don't like certain aspects of it. However, if it works as is being indicated, it could be a pretty amazing experience. being able to share games with 10 other people in your "group" is pretty awesome. Have a buddy with a game you want to try, it's in the cloud and bam, you start it up on your console. Have a game you want to play at a buddies house? It's in the cloud. Go to their house and start it up.

Buy one game, and play it on any xbox one you have. That means you can play it on your xbox one and your kids can play it on theirs, if they have one. All your games preloaded and updated means you can hot swap on the fly if you want to change games. No more swapping discs.

All that sounds fine with me.

There have also been more reports as developers have been talking about the xbox one, of how the cloud makes a difference for them in their games. The titan fall devs, for example, are offloading physics calculations and preventing things like PvP latency using the cloud. As devs get used to programming this way, it could free up more and more of the actual on board processor the xbox one has for the tasks the console actually needs to do. So in terms of raw processing power, the difference between the two consoles may not end up being that much, taking the cloud into account.

Finally, when it comes to kinect, say what you will about it, but the way the features are integrated this time around, it is pretty impressive. The voice control, the swapping between apps, skype, games, tv, etc, all on they fly, that's nothing to sneeze at. That is a real feature set that the PS4 is less strong with. Yes, kinect is packed in and mandatory, but that also means it will be supported by all devs for all games.

How many games do you think the PS4 camera is going to support in the end, since people have to buy it? You may not want it, and that is fine, but it is the difference between the camera being a peripheral (and probably not generally supported) and kinect actually being a feature of the xbox one console.

I mean look at Ryse. You can play the game the traditional way with a controller. However, if you want, you can issue voice commands to your troops using the kinect. Direct archers, or raise shields, or whatever. That makes for a game experience with more immersion and that is only because kinect is there so all devs can depend no being able to support it because every one has it. Who's going to bother adding in camera support on Sony's side of things, if 1/3 or 1/2 the people have a camera?

That has always been the problem with peripherals.

I wouldn't knock anyone picking a PS4 over and Xbox One. Sony has made a very viable console. The fact that the price point is $100 less than the Xbox one, I think is the biggest point in favor of it. It also has more raw power with regards to the specs. However, to dismiss the xbox one feature set out of hand, like MS some how screwed things up instead of sat down to really decide what they want the console to be able to do, is just silly.

That's not to say gamers won't reject MS's vision and go with the PS4 instead, but it's not like MS has come out with some Pile of a console.

It's very well thought out, and at least from what I saw of both E3 conferences, I don't see any difference in graphical capabilities in the games (which may come later I admit), so I'm not sure how much the spec differences really make at launch time. Features-wise, and if we're being honest, exclusive games-wise and new IPs-wise, the Xbox is the stronger of the two consoles. Value-wise, for what you get with the $100 less buy in price, the Ps4 is the stronger of the two consoles.

The interesting thing, come November, is to see if people are going to be willing to pay the extra money to get what MS is offering in terms of features on the Xbox One.

I know for me, all things being equal, if there was one thing that made me pick one over the other it would be Titan Fall. That game... that's the game I want for next gen. I wish it were a launch game. But there's no way I'm passing on that game. I will have an xbox one because of it. Out of everything I saw in both E3 conferences, that was the hands down definition of what I want next gen to look like.

[MadMax]

Anyone that was born in the 80's should have enough know how to design a computer home system that will be much more robust, better performing, and cheaper than any console home system.

Microsoft I feel is targeting a market that has little to no technological bearing. The people that are technologically savvy questions why you are paying for services that are already free on the internet? Heck, I don't even have TV service as internet streams don't require to set a DVR record time and you watch it when it is convenient for you and for FREE. Movies? Letmewatchthis.com.

I disagree there is no way you can build a rig that would compete with the
PS4 for $400, not with a single high end graphics card going for $500 or $600 alone then you have cpu, memory,
motherboard, power supply, and then the nail in the coffin the OS.

[MadMax]

Say what you will about the DRM policy on the xbox one, but once again, MS is presenting a well thought out, unified idea for what their console is supposed to do, as opposed to sony, which seems, yet again to have gone, "our console needs "x" amount of features, because the competition has "x" amount, with not much real thought or focus or honing of those features.

I mean, I watched the PSn features vid and all I really saw, besides the video sharing, is the fact that after 8 years, PSn is finally getting unified LIVE features.

This is not a rip on Sony per se, but just the simple fact that both companies have had very different ideas on how to approach their console. Sony was much more comfortable with getting the console out as is and then refining things later where as MS had a unified idea that they worked towards perfecting over the console life cycle.

Now, you may not be happy with the DRM on the xbox one. I don't like certain aspects of it. However, if it works as is being indicated, it could be a pretty amazing experience. being able to share games with 10 other people in your "group" is pretty awesome. Have a buddy with a game you want to try, it's in the cloud and bam, you start it up on your console. Have a game you want to play at a buddies house? It's in the cloud. Go to their house and start it up.

Buy one game, and play it on any xbox one you have. That means you can play it on your xbox one and your kids can play it on theirs, if they have one. All your games preloaded and updated means you can hot swap on the fly if you want to change games. No more swapping discs.

All that sounds fine with me.

There have also been more reports as developers have been talking about the xbox one, of how the cloud makes a difference for them in their games. The titan fall devs, for example, are offloading physics calculations and preventing things like PvP latency using the cloud. As devs get used to programming this way, it could free up more and more of the actual on board processor the xbox one has for the tasks the console actually needs to do. So in terms of raw processing power, the difference between the two consoles may not end up being that much, taking the cloud into account.

Finally, when it comes to kinect, say what you will about it, but the way the features are integrated this time around, it is pretty impressive. The voice control, the swapping between apps, skype, games, tv, etc, all on they fly, that's nothing to sneeze at. That is a real feature set that the PS4 is less strong with. Yes, kinect is packed in and mandatory, but that also means it will be supported by all devs for all games.

How many games do you think the PS4 camera is going to support in the end, since people have to buy it? You may not want it, and that is fine, but it is the difference between the camera being a peripheral (and probably not generally supported) and kinect actually being a feature of the xbox one console.

I mean look at Ryse. You can play the game the traditional way with a controller. However, if you want, you can issue voice commands to your troops using the kinect. Direct archers, or raise shields, or whatever. That makes for a game experience with more immersion and that is only because kinect is there so all devs can depend no being able to support it because every one has it. Who's going to bother adding in camera support on Sony's side of things, if 1/3 or 1/2 the people have a camera?

That has always been the problem with peripherals.

I wouldn't knock anyone picking a PS4 over and Xbox One. Sony has made a very viable console. The fact that the price point is $100 less than the Xbox one, I think is the biggest point in favor of it. It also has more raw power with regards to the specs. However, to dismiss the xbox one feature set out of hand, like MS some how screwed things up instead of sat down to really decide what they want the console to be able to do, is just silly.

That's not to say gamers won't reject MS's vision and go with the PS4 instead, but it's not like MS has come out with some Pile of a console.

It's very well thought out, and at least from what I saw of both E3 conferences, I don't see any difference in graphical capabilities in the games (which may come later I admit), so I'm not sure how much the spec differences really make at launch time. Features-wise, and if we're being honest, exclusive games-wise and new IPs-wise, the Xbox is the stronger of the two consoles. Value-wise, for what you get with the $100 less buy in price, the Ps4 is the stronger of the two consoles.

The interesting thing, come November, is to see if people are going to be willing to pay the extra money to get what MS is offering in terms of features on the Xbox One.

Very well said sir, this is basically what I was trying to convey although I wasn't as successful as you where. Just be prepared to have some people start calling you names like little girls for making an intelligent well thought out post.

[Iknownot]

Very well said sir, this is basically what I was trying to convey although I wasn't as successful as you where. Just be prepared to have some people start calling you names like little girls for making an intelligent well thought out post.

It wouldn't be any different than the last two gens when it came to Sony Vs MS consoles.

[the86d]

...

I sit here and wonder, what made Microsoft think this was a good idea? They got so greedy and controlling that they are doing all these restrictions and other BS stuff...

It's greed, along with control for sure, and they want it... just like politicians think they need to control/limit 2A rights, while they ask why anyone NEEDS and AR platform...

This control-freaking is rampant EVERYWHERE, and must be tied to this sense of entitlement that is rabid with monkeys everywhere these days. They probably require the 24 hour checkup to make sure people don't mod the devices. I played my banned 360 for a long time before I even tried to plug it in to the network.

[socal-shooter]

This gaming console is a home surveillance device..

[Iknownot]

It's greed, along with control for sure, and they want it... just like politicians think they need to control/limit 2A rights, while they ask why anyone NEEDS and AR platform...

I disagree with you that the primary motivation is greed. I'm sure MS wants to make money, as any business does, but I don't think their intent is to screw over anyone.

I think they, just like anyone else who's been dealing with the internet for the past 10 years, sees that digital distribution is the way gaming is going to go in the very near future. Physical media is going to go away. I think anyone who's used Steam would easily agree with that. So MS is being forward looking. Sure, they may be ushering it in a half gen early, but if you really look at what they are doing with the DRM, the always connected, the 24 hour check in, the automatic downloads and updates, the sharing of games, etc, you can see they are trying to create a unified, well thought out, robust digital delivery back bone, that they can also use for other things like computing in the cloud which will benefit the console in general.

Sony went, "what we did last gen is good enough for us," and MS took a look at what Amazon's being doing with the kindle, and Apple's being doing with apps, and Steam has been doing with PC games and MS said, that's the way things are going and we need our own plan to offer the best features we can once every thing goes digital.

You may disagree with that vision. If so, then sony has the console for you. I for one, am very interested in some of the features MS is going to be offering on the xbox one. The cloud computing and games in the cloud features, I think will be a plus to owning the console.

Obviously, we still need to wait closer to launch to really see the details, but so far, I'm not seeing so much bad with what MS has proposed, and a lot of really interesting good stuff.

Is the 24 hour period too stringent? I personally think so. I would like to see it increased to a week or whatever. Is that a deal breaker for me? probably not. My xboxes (xbox and X360) have been hooked up to the internet 24/7 since LIVE first launched 12 years ago.

[the86d]

...
Buy one game, and play it on any xbox one you have. That means you can play it on your xbox one and your kids can play it on theirs, if they have one. All your games preloaded and updated means you can hot swap on the fly if you want to change games...

The problem is nobody really knows anything in detail...

Is a game purchased per console? Can kids play at a different IP than the account holder's IP under the same Live subscription but different account? Can we buy used xBones, or even activate used xBones? Sell/transfer ownership of them? Is a Live subscription required to be GOLD and current/actively paid yearly for the device to work, or does the xBone stop working completely after 24 hours? Can you stream Netflix after the year subscription runs out and you don't want to ante-up again, OR if you don't want a subscription at all?

I tend to play games that do not interact with others like the Fallout series, Bioshock series, and only play maybe 3 months part-time, and won't play again for 3 months after I beat a game so an active Live subscription is not worth it for me. Hell on the 360 without an active subscription I cannot even use my 360 to watch Netflix, as I have ZERO need for a subscription, so I am denied the use of Netflix on a 360's I already own (of course the banned 360 is not referenced here) and by son cannot use IE on his 360, as he does not have a live subscription. It seems like M$ is nickel-and-dimming to death... just like everybody else, but less is known about ANY specifics, other than PS4 would be a better option for those who have been limited by M$ a device they have owned in the past...

[Iknownot]

The problem is nobody really knows anything, and nothing has really really explained in detail anywhere, like they are still making it up as they say it...

Is a game purchased per console? Can kids play at a different IP than the account holder's IP under the same Live subscription but different account? Can we buy used xBones, or even activate used xBones? Sell/transfer ownership of them? Is a Live subscription required to be GOLD and current/actively paid yearly for the device to work, or does the xBone stop working completely after 24 hours? Can you stream Netflix after the year subscription runs out and you don't want to ante-up again, OR if you don't want a subscription at all?

I don't want to cut and paste as I don't have the time for it, but MS has answered a lot of those questions, in general. I think to expect LIVE to be different in terms of subscription costs and things like Netflix usage, considering LIVE has been an established infrastructure for 11 years is wishful thinking. Maybe MS will move netflix outside of the pay wall and maybe MS will offer more features for free, but to expect it, I don't think so.

As for the new features, MS has said you can share games with 10 people in your "group". MS has said you can play any game you own on 2 consoles at the same time. MS has said all your games are install on the HDD required and that any game you own will also be available on the cloud. They said you will be able to go to a friend's house and play any game you own. They said that you can also buy physical discs and that you will be able to resell them at least once, or lend or trade them once to someone on your friends list.

Yes, we still need the fine details, but so far, I'm seeing a DRM structure that is trying to balance digital delivery with ease of use and cloud functionality.

[NytWolf]

Anyone that was born in the 80's should have enough know how to design a computer home system that will be much more robust, better performing, and cheaper than any console home system.

Microsoft I feel is targeting a market that has little to no technological bearing. The people that are technologically savvy questions why you are paying for services that are already free on the internet? Heck, I don't even have TV service as internet streams don't require to set a DVR record time and you watch it when it is convenient for you and for FREE. Movies? Letmewatchthis.com.

I agree, and the market that Microsoft is targeting is a large portion of American homes. Also, the more robuts and cheaper system that you've just built cannot interface with your fridge ... or your dryer ... what about your home security system?

It wasn't until recently that 50% of homes in the U.S. have Internet access. A small minority of that 50% is technologically savvy. With that said, Microsoft's target market is larger than one would expect. Additionally, a portion of the technologically savvy would want to venture into the all-in-one boxes. That only increases the target market.

And why would anybody want to pay for a service that you already get for free? Answer this: why is Netflix making millions? Why is anyone dumb enough to pay for something that YOU could find online for free?

[Iknownot]

I'm really tired of the pay for LIVE vs free for PSn argument anyway. It's been 11 years already.

Would I prefer LIVE to be free? Of course, however I can hardly begrudge the $5 a month for the unified, across all games, system that MS has set up. It works every time, across any game, and everyone uses it because anyone who has signed up for it wants the features and the devs know this.

It is very clear that LIVE was the better of the two online systems. People that wanted the best online experience on a console had no issue with paying for LIVE. Should things like netflix be moved outside the pay wall? Yes. Does it really matter to most people with an xbox, not really, because they are paying for LIVE anyway.

I, for one, do not see the difference between LIVE and PSn changing much for next gen. MS has a much more unified idea of what LIVE is supposed to do and has spent more money than sony on infrastructure over the past 11 years and is upgrading LIVE's back bone again for the cloud computing with more servers again, this time around.

I don't have a problem paying $5 a month for that.

Why is anyone dumb enough to pay for something that YOU could find online for free?

As for that, i'm not sure what you are saying. If you are implying people willing to pay for LIVE are too stupid to figure out how to pirate stuff, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I will not download the things I want for free, even if I want them. If I don't want something bad enough to pay for it, then I simply make do with out it.

I'm not sure the sense of equating a free vs paid subscription service with a paid service vs illegally downloading things off the internet.

[NytWolf]

As for that, i'm not sure what you are saying. If you are implying people willing to pay for LIVE are too stupid to figure out how to pirate stuff, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I will not download the things I want for free, even if I want them. If I don't want something bad enough to pay for it, then I simply make do with out it.

I'm not sure the sense of equating a free vs paid subscription service with a paid service vs illegally downloading things off the internet.

It was my response to Dattebayo comment about streaming movies from the Internet for free. See above.

[PuppY_K1ck3R]

So, to the current xbox owners, do you not leave your system hooked up to the network all the time anyways?

I do, and I don't feel this is an issue.

I have no issue with the camera and the mic.

You want to see a big guy in his undies watching tv?...go for it

I clean my guns while i watch TV. Plus microsoft's partnership with the NSA is no bueno. Tap my phones all you want but leave my damn console alone.